The Senate alone may decide how to proceed when the president, a
federal judge or other public official is impeached, the Supreme Court
ruled unanimously yesterday.

The case had been brought by former U.S. district judge Walter L.
Nixon Jr., who in 1989 was convicted by the Senate of "high crimes and
misdemeanors" stemming from a perjury conviction three years earlier.
The former Mississippi jurist contended that the Senate violated its
constitutional mandate to "try all impeachments" when it had a
committee, instead of the full Senate, take testimony.

Lower courts had refused to intervene in Nixon's case, but in
September U.S. District Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled that the Senate's
1989 conviction of another judge, Alcee L. Hastings of Florida, was
improper.

Hastings, who was convicted in the Senate two weeks before Nixon, won
a House seat in Florida's 23rd Congressional District in November and
last week was sworn in to the body that impeached him.

Impeachment begins in the House, where the Judiciary Committee
investigates an official. A simple majority vote of the full House
formally brings impeachment charges. The trial is conducted by the
Senate. If found guilty by a two-thirds vote of senators present, the
impeached official is removed from office.

Yesterday's ruling puts to rest the conflict among lower courts about
whether the judiciary may review Senate procedure and also validates the
convictions of three federal judges since 1986. In each case, evidence
had been collected by and testimony given to committees, which then
reported to the full Senate. The third judge, Harry E. Claiborne of
Nevada, was impeached and convicted in 1986.

In the majority opinion written by Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist, the court said it could not actually review Nixon's complaint
because impeachment procedure is the domain of the legislative branch.
As a result, the case is not "justiciable," that is, cannot be resolved
by the courts.

Rehnquist referred to Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 of the
Constitution, which says, "The Senate shall have the sole power to try
all impeachment."

"This authority is reposed in the Senate and nowhere else," Rehnquist
wrote.

Nixon had hinged his argument on the word "try" in Article 1, saying
the Senate did not truly "try" him because a 12-member committee did
most of the gathering of evidence and testimony. Under that procedure,
he maintained, "impeachment becomes easy {and} conviction is politically
expedient. . . . "

But Rehnquist countered that the framers of the Constitution intended
"try" to be read more broadly.

Overall, the chief justice said, "Judicial involvement in impeachment
proceedings, even if only for purposes of judicial review, is
conterintuitive because it would eviscerate the 'important
constitutional check' placed on the judiciary by the framers."

"Nixon's argument would place final reviewing authority with respect
to impeachment in the hands of the same body that the impeachment
process is meant to regulate."

Nixon had been chief judge for the Southern District of Mississippi
when he was convicted in federal court, stemming from his statements
that he did not try to influence a state prosecutor's handling of a drug
trafficking case. That case involved the son of a business associate who
had given Nixon a deal on oil and gas royalties.

Despite that conviction, Nixon, a federal judge appointed for life,
remained on the bench. Only the Senate's impeachment conviction stripped
him of the judgeship.